HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House Room No.579, Aayakar Bhavan 165/166 Backbay Reclamation M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 PAN : AACH1004N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ms Jasmin Amalsadwala Department represented by Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT dr Date of hearing 01-08-2023 Date of pronouncement 18-08-2023 O R D E R PER : MS PADMAVATHY

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Yogesh Thar Shri Chaitanya Joshi Ms. SukanyaJayaram Department represented by : Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 09.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 2 ITA NO.3137 & 3138/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) ITA.No. 3177/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/s. ACC Limited

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Yogesh Thar Shri Chaitanya Joshi Ms. SukanyaJayaram Department represented by : Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 09.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 2 ITA NO.3137 & 3138/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) ITA.No. 3177/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/s. ACC Limited

SAURASHTRA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10B declaring total income at Rs.2,20,03,230/-. In the assessment order, the AO acknowledges that he had issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on 01.02.2019 & 20.08.2019 calling for relevant details and raised queries. And pursuant to which the assessee had filed answers to queries and furnished details as requisitioned by him. After examining the details filed

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House is utilized as Palacial palace of Bhujbal family and being utilized as their private residence without any compensation. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 06. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that there is a violation of the provision of Sections 13 of the Act and therefore

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House is utilized as Palacial palace of Bhujbal family and being utilized as their private residence without any compensation. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 06. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that there is a violation of the provision of Sections 13 of the Act and therefore

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House is utilized as Palacial palace of Bhujbal family and being utilized as their private residence without any compensation. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 06. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that there is a violation of the provision of Sections 13 of the Act and therefore

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House is utilized as Palacial palace of Bhujbal family and being utilized as their private residence without any compensation. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 06. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that there is a violation of the provision of Sections 13 of the Act and therefore

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

10B claiming exemption u/s 11 and declared total income at ₹.NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended and submitted the details as called for. 3. During Assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer analysed the objects

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

house property. The assessee admitted that while returning its income for the year under consideration this expenditure due to inadvertent left out to be disallowed by the assessee as the expenditure claimed under the head repairs and maintenance amounting to ₹ 12,66,486/-. Before us, now it was claimed that there was in dispute about quantum of claim of expenditure

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

house property. The assessee admitted that while returning its income for the year under consideration this expenditure due to inadvertent left out to be disallowed by the assessee as the expenditure claimed under the head repairs and maintenance amounting to ₹ 12,66,486/-. Before us, now it was claimed that there was in dispute about quantum of claim of expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act\nwas issued on 22.09.2012 followed by notice u/s. 142(1)\ndated 16.08.2013. In response, the assessee filed details. On\nconsideration of the submissions, the assessee was of the\nPage | 2\nopinion that the assessee was hit by the provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2012 followed by notice u/s. 142(1) dated 16.08.2013. In response, the assessee filed details. On consideration of the submissions, the assessee was of the ITA No. 3076/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2011-12 & ITA No. 3077/Mum/2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2012 followed by notice u/s. 142(1) dated 16.08.2013. In response, the assessee filed details. On consideration of the submissions, the assessee was of the ITA No. 3076/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2011-12 & ITA No. 3077/Mum/2024

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIKAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

section (4) of section 10A section 10A, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of segregating the profits of the busin segregating the profits of the business into export profits and ess into export profits and domestic

HENRIETTA MARIA PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1914/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2002-2003) Henrietta Maria Pereira, B/602, Vintage Chs Ltd, Ic Colony, Borivali (West),Mumbai – 400 103 Pan: Akupp5344E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -17(1), Room No.117/135, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

10B) of the Act, however, he has made reference to section 10 of the Act in the reasons. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that no addition has been made on the reasons for which assessment has been reopened. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. Before

DR. PRABHA ATRE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in subclause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose

EDELWEISS COMMODITIES SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

House, 4th Floor Churchgate Off CST Road, Kalina Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 098. PAN : AAKCS7311R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Shri Jitendra Jain, Ravikant S. Pathak & Shri A.T. Jaind Department by Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of Hearing 17.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the assessment order